Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frida Ghitis (2nd nomination)

Frida Ghitis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recently nominated for deletion by Scientelensia, who's rationale still holds true: "is of no relevance or notability, reads like a CV rather than a Wikipedia page." Currently only primary sources. My searches turned up the same thing as Oaktree's during the prior AfD: "I can only bring up articles or opinion pieces written by this person, nothing about them... I suppose if more book reviews are found, could have a chance at AUTHOR, but I couldn't find any." Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:09, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Journalism. Shellwood (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: why was this recreated? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 15:08, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The last AfD was closed as a "soft delete" which equates as a "prod", which was contested. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:12, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is about a notable political commentator fitting the criteria of

WP:CREATIVE. All of the sources are secondary, not primary, sources. Among other things, none of the references are written by the subject of the article. While work can be done to improve the article, deleting it is not the appropriate remedy for any concerns. Coining (talk) 01:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

KEEP I see plenty of secondary sources. HitchensT (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]